1002:2022:6.2
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
| 1002:2022:6.2 [2022/08/31 19:53] – Ryan Schram (admin) | 1002:2022:6.2 [2022/08/31 23:46] – [Fordist families in a post-Fordist era] Ryan Schram (admin) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| * Kinship in the Fordist “private” domain of the nuclear family is still, as Carsten might say, something people do; it’s invisible to the rest of the world since doing kinship is seen as strictly women’s work. | * Kinship in the Fordist “private” domain of the nuclear family is still, as Carsten might say, something people do; it’s invisible to the rest of the world since doing kinship is seen as strictly women’s work. | ||
| - | * Even as the Fordist social contract collapses, people still adhere to this ideological representation of kinship as private. Women who work in dual-income households still do most if not all of the care work; they pull a “second shift” at home (A. Hochschild 1989). | + | * Even as the Fordist social contract collapses, people still adhere to this ideological representation of kinship as private. Women who work in dual-income households still do most if not all of the care work; they pull a “second shift” at home (Hochschild 1989). |
| - | ==== Families | + | ==== Families have responded to the breakdown of the Fordist social contract in different and unequal ways ==== |
| * Wealthy families commodify the acts of kinship by hiring domestic workers who work in the families’ homes, contributing to a system of “stratified reproduction” (Colen 1995). | * Wealthy families commodify the acts of kinship by hiring domestic workers who work in the families’ homes, contributing to a system of “stratified reproduction” (Colen 1995). | ||
| * By and large, domestic workers in wealthy households are also other people’s mothers, and they depend on other kin to provide care work for their children in their absence, especially among transnational immigrant domestic workers. | * By and large, domestic workers in wealthy households are also other people’s mothers, and they depend on other kin to provide care work for their children in their absence, especially among transnational immigrant domestic workers. | ||
| - | * The result is a “global care chain” linking households through commodity and gift exchanges (A. R. Hochschild 2000). (These chains are also conduits of remittances within transnational households.) | + | * The result is a “global care chain” linking households through commodity and gift exchanges (Hochschild 2000). (These chains are also conduits of remittances within transnational households.) |
| In conclusion, global capitalism is a broken system on the verge of collapse. Informal economies and transnational reciprocity are the duct tape and chewing gum holding it together. | In conclusion, global capitalism is a broken system on the verge of collapse. Informal economies and transnational reciprocity are the duct tape and chewing gum holding it together. | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| - | Fraser, Nancy. (1997) 2013. “After the Family Wage: A Postindustriell | + | Fraser, Nancy. (1997) 2013. “After the Family Wage: A Postindustrial |
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
| - | Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 2000. “Global Care Chains and Emotional Surplus Value.” In //On the Edge: Globalization and the New Millennium//, | + | ———. 2000. “Global Care Chains and Emotional Surplus Value.” In //On the Edge: Globalization and the New Millennium//, |
1002/2022/6.2.txt · Last modified: 2022/09/01 16:31 by Ryan Schram (admin)